Mom May Have to Choose Between Nursing and Custody

I have previously posted here and here on the issue of breastfeeding as it relates to matters of child custody and visitation. Now word comes of a Minnesota case in which a court-appointed guardian-ad-litem is urging the judge to order a mother to stop breastfeeding her baby due to the prescription medication the mother takes. The mother maintains that she researched the potential effects of the medications on a child through breast milk, and states that she would stop breastfeeding immediately if she believed that her child was being harmed. The judge is scheduled to rule on the matter next month.

Is this an appropriate concern on behalf of the guardian-ad-litem or another example of the state’s intrusion into the domain of child-rearing? Feel free to leave a comment.

For more information, read this newspaper article.

Source: StarTribune.com.

Source for post: Oklahoma Family Law Blog

Court Appointed Counsel for Canine

Ron Callan Jr. left an estate worth about $2 million, but the most hotly contested item in the late businessman’s Tennessee probate court case is his 13-year-old golden retriever, Alex. The four-way fight over custody of Alex was so intense that a judge appointed an attorney to represent the dog’s interests. A judge on Monday approved a consent order to split custody of the dog based on the recommendations of the guardian ad litem, The Commercial Appeal reported. “Obviously, this is a very unusual set of circumstances,” attorney Paul Royal wrote of his four-legged client. “At first glance, the petition seems almost frivolous, but after speaking with all parties, it is evident that this is a highly emotional issue for all involved.”

Callan, whose New Year’s Day shooting death was ruled a suicide, left no will, leaving the court to decide what to do with the dog and the rest of the estate. Callan, 35, was a partner with his father in Callan Salvage & Appraisal Co. His father, Ronald Callan Sr., who was named administrator of his son’s estate, has had an ongoing dispute with former wife Esther Snow Gnall over ownership, care and custody of their son’s dog. Ronald Callan even claims his ex-wife tried to pay one of his employees to kidnap Alex, an allegation she denies. Also interested in who got the dog was Kim Guill, the fiancee of Ron Callan Jr., who was present when he died. Gnall said that if she gets custody or visitation with Alex, she would allow Guill to spend considerable time with the dog. Royal, the dog’s attorney, said in his report to the court that he believes all four people love Alex and would take good care of him. But he said the parties are using the fight for the dog as a means of punishing each other for past transgressions. The elder Callan currently has custody of Alex and brings him to work, where he stays in his office. Callan Sr., who has cats at home, has Alex spend his nights with Chris Griffith, his son’s former girlfriend who has known him since he was a puppy.

In the consent order, the father and mother will trade custody every two weeks. Both parties agreed to take the dog to the veterinarian twice a week for his arthritis treatments and any other needed procedures. “This case is similar to a bitter custody battle involving children where each party loves the children, but the kids are stuck between two people who cannot coexist,” the attorney said in his report.

Source: Associated Press, via Law.com.

Source for post: Iowa Family Law

Commentator Claims That Media Perpetuates Myths Regarding Women’s Post-Divorce Finances

One of the reasons for the dramatic increases in child support guidelines over 20 years is the pervasive and mistaken notion that divorced fathers gain economically from divorce while women suffer from it. The myth stems from a now-discredited study conducted over two decades ago by feminist Lenore Weitzman, author of the 1985 book The Divorce Revolution. Weitzman concluded that women’s standard of living after divorce dropped by three quarters while men’s rose over 40%. The media trumpeted her research–some have called it one of the most widely reported studies in media history–and it led to sharp increases in child support guidelines. However, years later Weitzman was forced to admit that her findings were vastly overstated, due to a huge mathematical error.

Despite this, the myth that men gain economically from divorce remains pervasive, and is repeated even today by numerous writers and commentators, including conservatives like Dennis Prager, feminists like Ann Crittenden, and even by masculists like Tom Leykis.

Sanford Braver, Ph.D., one of the nation’s leading experts on the economics of divorce, helped uncover and expose the Weitzman hoax. His research demonstrates that when all relevant factors are taken into account, including the numerous tax advantages custodial parents enjoy, the “men gain/women lose” idea is badly in error. In fact, his new research indicates that the opposite outcome may be more common. To learn more about Braver’s research, click here.

Child support expert Jane Spies of the National Family Justice Association also discusses the Weitzman hoax in her recent article The Myth of the Successful Child Support System.

MSNBC, in its recent report on divorce, pushes the myth that men gain financially from divorce and women suffer from it. According to MSNBC:

“After a divorce, a woman’s cost of living can increase dramatically, hence the reason why court-ordered alimony and child support payments most often go to women. Even so, experts report the average woman experiences a 45 percent decrease in her standard of living after going through a divorce. Meanwhile, the average man experiences a 15 percent improvement in his standard of living.”

These statistics are in error. The MSNBC report is below.

From money to emotions: Get over your divorce How to deal with the financial and emotional pitfalls of a split
MSNBC, Aug 21, 2007

No matter what the circumstances, divorce is never easy. Both sides have to deal with heart-wrenching personal and financial decisions, but women in particular often find themselves in need of solid financial and emotional advice.Divorce financial analyst Stacy Francis and psychologist and author Debra Mandel offer their advice on how deal with divorce on both fronts.Protect yourself financiallyAfter a divorce, a woman’s cost of living can increase dramatically, hence the reason why court-ordered alimony and child support payments most often go to women. Even so, experts report the average woman experiences a 45 percent decrease in her standard of living after going through a divorce. Meanwhile, the average man experiences a 15 percent improvement in his standard of living.Divorcing women often react financially to their feelings. They operate from a place of feeling hurt, angry and unappreciated, and that influences spending — for good and bad. They may overspend to compensate for their feelings of loss or fear becoming a bag lady and eat nothing but Ramen noodles to save money. This is a time to look realistically at hard-core finances, and Francis recommends taking the following stepsRead the full article here.

Source: Glenn Sacks

Great Wedding! But Was It Legal?

In an era of six-figure weddings when couples obsess about the band playlist and hand towels for the restrooms, one question may get short shrift: Is the person performing the wedding legally able to do so?

Daniel Morales and Gwendolyn Baxter thought they knew. Their outdoor ceremony two summers ago in Farmington, Conn., was performed by a friend who had been ordained online by the Universal Life Church. Having heard of other couples who were married that way, they assumed it was legal.

But Connecticut is one of a half-dozen places that do not recognize marriages performed by someone who became a minister for the sole purpose of marrying people. Such a minister “doesn’t meet the requirements of the state statutes,” said William Gerrish, a spokesman for the Connecticut Department of Public Health.

The penalty in Connecticut for an unauthorized performance of a marriage is a fine of up to $500 and a year in jail for the officiant, though Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut attorney general, said prosecution is unlikely.

As for the marriage, the statute is clear, Mr. Blumenthal said. Nonetheless, he encouraged couples not to panic; unless the issue is forced through divorce or death, the judicial system tends to grant couples the benefit of the doubt.

“If the marriage is performed by someone unauthorized, but the two people having the marriage still believe it to be valid, it may continue to be valid until someone challenges it,” he said.

But, he said, “They are at risk.”

With so many people turning to friends and relatives to perform their marriage ceremonies, more are bound to discover that they may not be legally married. But finding out what is allowed can be daunting. Marriage laws are often vague and vary from state to state and county by county. And misimpressions are rampant.

“The most important thing to us was that someone we knew and liked would marry us,” said Mr. Morales, who is a lawyer in Chicago, where his wife is in law school.

“If two lawyers can be duped into getting married illegally,” Mr. Morales said, “then anybody can.”

For some couples, the legality of the marriage is a secondary consideration. They see their wedding as a public celebration of their commitment to each other and little more than that.

So, with their encouragement, friends and relatives with no more interest in ministering than the looming wedding date sign up with online ministries, where they can become ordained just by typing in their name and address.

The Universal Life Church alone has ordained more than 18 million ministers since it was founded in 1959 in Modesto, Calif. The organization ordains 10,000 people a month, twice as many as in 2000, according to Andre Hensley, the church’s president. Eighty percent join the fold solely to perform weddings, he said.

The Church of Spiritual Humanism, the Rose Ministries and the Temple of Earth, which describes itself as a “religion-free religion,” also have online ministry sites.

Somehow forgotten is that marriage is a legal contract. And three states besides Connecticut – Alabama, Virginia and Tennessee – as well as other jurisdictions, prohibit weddings performed by ministers who do not have active ministries.

Even in Las Vegas, that city’s no-holds-barred image notwithstanding, it is illegal for individuals to perform a marriage if they do not have a congregation, according to Lynda Foresta, the Clark County division manager of marriage services. Yes, Elvis may be in the house, but he may face up to six months doing the “Jailhouse Rock” unless an authorized minister is there to sign the license.

In many other states, including New York, the rules about ministers ordained online are less clear. Often, even city, county and state officials are uncertain of the parameters.

As a clerk at the Marriage License Bureau in Philadelphia, who did not want to be named because she is not allowed to speak to reporters, said, “People call us and ask if it’s legal or not, and we don’t know if it’s legal.”

Wedding announcements may generate more confusion. The New York Times has a policy of publishing articles only about weddings in which it can confirm that the officiant is legally empowered to perform the ceremony. Nonetheless, confusion over which jurisdictions permit what officiants has led to the publication of articles about at least a dozen weddings in recent years that in retrospect appear questionable.

The laws regarding officiants are there to ensure that only people of sufficient standing perform a ceremony that is a keystone of society. Elnora Douglas, the office coordinator of the St. Louis County marriage license department, finds it odd that couples would want to circumvent them.

“It’s like you want your favorite cousin to do a surgery, so they go online to get a medical degree,” she said.

Still, she said, “Everyone saw that episode of ‘Friends’ where Joey got ordained, and we’ve been bombarded.”

Kimberly Palmer, 27, a business reporter at US News & World Report in Washington, said she turned to a Universal Life minister because she and her husband are of different religions.

She grew up Catholic, she said, and her husband, Sujay Davé, 29, has a parent who is Hindu. Though neither consider themselves religious, they wanted their ceremony to “have an underlying spiritual element.” They were married in 2005 in Chevy Chase, Md., after conflicting responses from town officials regarding the wedding’s legality there. (A county clerk later told a Times reporter that it was legal).

The option of standing before a judge or justice of the peace did not appeal to them.

“It would have been so impersonal,” Ms. Palmer said. “We were willing to take the risk to have the ceremony that we really wanted.”

That may not be the wisest course, said Louise Truax, a lawyer in Fairfield, Conn., who specializes in family law.

“If you get married by someone who isn’t able to marry you, that’s a problem,” she said, proceeding to list some of the potential repercussions: “If you don’t have a legally recognized marriage, then your ability to get relief in the event of a divorce goes away,” she said. Inheritance rights could also be in jeopardy, and couples could have trouble with the I.R.S. if they filed joint tax returns.

And 39 states, including Connecticut, do not recognize common-law marriage, so the idea that time together will legalize the union does not apply.

FOR that reason, officials in many states discourage couples from using ministers ordained online, even when they have not been explicitly ruled illegal.

“Err on the side of caution,” said Caren Martin, the deputy in charge of litigation for the marriage license bureau of Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania. “Make sure the person is qualified and don’t take chances.”

New York State, New Jersey and Florida have very broadly worded laws that seem to allow ministers ordained online to perform weddings. Yet it was in New York that a marriage performed by an online minister was invalidated.

In 1989, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court ruled in a divorce case involving a Suffolk County couple that their marriage and a prenuptial agreement were void because the officiant had been a Universal Life minister.

“A church which consists of all ministers, and in which all new converts can become instant ministers, in fact has no minister,” the court wrote, concluding, “A minister whose title and status is so casually and cavalierly acquired does not qualify for licensing to marry.” Case closed.

Or perhaps not.

“We found that to be rather archaic,” said Patrick Synmoie, the counsel to the City Clerk of New York. The office issued its own rule last October, allowing Universal Life ministers to again officiate at weddings in the five boroughs.

But the appellate court’s ruling still holds for Westchester County, Long Island and most of the Hudson Valley.

“We will try to get that overturned,” said Mr. Hensley of the Universal Life Church, who defended his church and the authenticity of its wedding practitioners.

“Not every minister excels at all the functions of the ministry,” he said. “Some people are more comfortable preaching. Others aren’t, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t want to serve or pastor in a certain way.”

So where does that leave couples who cannot confirm whether their marriages are valid or not?

“They could just go to city hall and do it again and then they’ll know they’re married,” advised Ariela Dubler, a vice dean of Columbia University Law School. “Of course, in every state but Massachusetts this wouldn’t apply to couples of the same sex, who are excluded from the states’ marriage laws.”

Over all, she concluded, “It’s not in a state’s interest to have lots of couples who thought they were married discover they’re not married.”

Source for post: The New York Times

Burying the Billable Hour

It has long been my belief that the billable hour system, by which many attorneys charge their clients and earn their livings ( and as I do, too for some matters, by way of disclosure) creates an inherent tension between the attorney’s interests and those of the client. If the attorney is being paid by the hour, doesn’t he or she benefit from taking as much time as possible, or at least as much as the client will be willing to pay for, in completing a task? Of what possible benefit is this to the client? This is a primary reason that I have started to use alternative fee arrangements, such as flat fees, staged fees and success based fess and the like, for more matters, with the goal ultimately of using such arrangements in all cases. It is my view that legal fees, like fees for any other service, should be based on value added. Even some in biglaw are now seeing the light. In an article in the August 2007 issue of the ABA Journal, best selling author and Chicago litigator Scott Turow fairly well lays bare the flaws in the billable hour system. Whether Turow’s large law firm colleagues follow his lead or not, however, I intend to continue to pursue a full transition to alternative fees. My clients deserve nothing less.

How Will Divorce Affect My Credit?

In the unfortunate event that you get a divorce, worrying about your credit score may be the last thing on your mind. However, even during the most trying times of our lives, the world keeps spinning and the fact is, divorce can greatly impact your finances and credit history. If you are seeking or have finalized a divorce, it is time to assess what needs to be done to preserve or restore your financial reputation. Below, we will explain how divorce can affect your credit, as well as what you should do before and after your separation.

Perleman Ex Sues for More

As if the $40 million divorce settlement wasn’t enough, actress Ellen Barkin is suing her ex-husband, financier Ron Perleman, for an additional $3.4 million that she says he agreed to pay to a production company that she started with her unemployed brother. Perleman says Barkin has not fulfilled her obligations under their agreement.